Ravindra Raghu Bobade And Anr vs. Su. Parshvanath Construction Company And Anr

Held

The High Court held that the trial judge had indeed recorded a finding that triable issues were raised and that an opportunity to adduce evidence would be given to the Defendants. Crucially, the trial judge did not record any finding casting doubt on the Defendants' good faith or the genuineness of the triable issues. Therefore, the Court found that the principles set out in paragraph 17.2 of IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited Vs. Hubtown Limited were attracted. This principle states that if a defendant raises triable issues indicating a fair or reasonable defence, they are ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside to the extent it imposed the condition of depositing 50% of the suit claim, and the Defendants were granted unconditional leave to defend. The Court directed the filing of the Written Statement within two weeks and requested the trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit.

Facts

The Petitioners (Defendants) challenged an order by the Senior Division Civil Judge, Barshi, which granted them leave to defend a suit filed by the Respondent (Plaintiff) but imposed a condition of depositing 50% of the suit claim. The Plaintiff, a contractor, sued for Rs. 16,72,298/- for constructing a building based on an agreement dated 25.07.2018. The trial judge noted triable issues, specifically highlighting a discrepancy in the agreement regarding "18% GST" between the Plaintiff's and Defendant's versions. The Defendant's defense included allegations of delayed and incomplete construction, and overpayment. Despite finding triable issues, the court imposed the deposit condition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred in imposing a condition of depositing 50% of the suit claim while granting leave to defend, when triable issues were found to be raised by the defendant, under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioners argued that based on the trial judge's observations and prima facie findings of triable issues, the principle outlined in paragraph 17.2 of the Supreme Court's decision in IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited Vs. Hubtown Limited should apply, entitling them to unconditional leave to defend. Respondent's Argument: The Respondent (Plaintiff) contended that paragraph 17.3 of the same Supreme Court judgment was relevant, suggesting that the trial judge had discretion to impose conditions if there was any doubt about the defendant's good faith or the genuineness of the triable issues.